On a tendency of humans with religions...

[Guest guest]

Ever since Sept. 11th I have been pondering this dilemma and have come to

a

conclusion. I need to do some research.

 

I have a hypothesis about greed, politics and religion. Basically if one

takes a given religion, and elements of political powerlessness and/or

economic depression are present, and another group of a related people,

but slightly different are present, there will be trouble, and if that

trouble takes the name of religion, it will be worse than usual. In this

situation, religion is indeed as Mao Tse Tung said, a poison. This pattern

one can observe on the evening news in Kashmir, Israel, Iraq, China, etc.

In the united states, we had Branch Dividians and the terrorist attacks on

the Murrow building.

 

I have in mind a research paper on the tendency of people to adopt extreme

views in many different religious guises, but with the same sort of end,

the gain of political, economic or social power. My topic, however, is

broad enough for a book!

 

So I'm writing to you all hoping to spark a discussion that might help me

narrow the focus of the research.

 

I want to do this in order to benefit others, to put down in writing in a

form that can be understood what differentiates the terrorist in the

clothing of the religious from the genuine.

[Guest guest]

Delighted that you are giving good thoughts to the group and your kind inspirations.

I truly appreciate your choice of words. And, after some reflection

think that, perhaps, as you hint, that such things as "religious

acts" really truly do not exist.

(I hear the groans from others already!)

My response is based on the ideas that we can have "Religious

Ceremonies" or "Practices" such as genuflecting, bowing, putting

hands together in prayer, counting prayers, etc., but these are not

"religious acts" in terms of it being done to or for another person.

A priest or nun might bring food or water to a sick person, but so

could anyone else, for reasons other than the nature of their

religious beliefs or affiliations. When we act with compassion or

love toward others, this is either an act of natural kindness, with

its roots in genuine caring...or it is a sham manifested by those who

either believe that they are doing what society and their religion say

should be done, or else they fear that they will go to a place with a

terrible climate after they die. In either event, this is not a

religious act, either.

One can be inspired by the Divine...learn love and compassion...and in

being transformed, treat others better and forgive (others and ones

self) but all of this should not be confused with "Religious acts."

Once that Rubicon has been crossed, all manner of bad things seem to

follow behind. That is the very reason that a terrorist or a

Champion of the Inquisition finds justification in wrapping their

personal agendas and animosities in the cloak of religion.

Personally, I think truly spiritual (as opposed to "religious") people

usually do not make much ado about their inner devotion. Jesus

admonished his followers to pray in private...not to display their

devotions publically...and I think that seems very much the right

thing.

Well, it has given this topic something to toss about, has it not?

Love,

Namaste...

Zenbob

[Guest guest]

Forgot about the Arjuna example from the Gita...

I used to ponder that situation a great deal when I was just starting

college and visiting with my first teachers of Yoga and Hinduism.

Krsna would suggest that the issue was not one of a "religious nature"

but of a larger struggle of good against evil, in which the souls of

those killed would be born again, in any case...and that one had to

weigh the Karma of the moment.

There is plenty of political expediency in this story, but I question

the motives of both Arjuna and Krsna. Arjuna really tears at his

hair over the issue of war and killing...but it is a hollow

complaint...as he has arrayed an army against the invaders. Even if

he does not initiate any act of violence, violence will occur and

someone somewhere will be killed. Pacifists and terrorists were

killed in Jenin by the Israeli assault...and I don't think religious

views mattered in terms of their suffering. It could be argued that

some were more innocent than others--or even that all were knowingly

at risk...but that is simplification. When tanks roll over your

home, your choices are made narrow.

Krsna urges Arjuna to act to preserve the culture that seems to

appreciate religious niceties...the irony of the sensitive, spiritual

type of culture being required to fight all the harder to win, in

order to prevent an evil, non-religious and brutal society from

winning. In WWII, that is how Allied nations portrayed their fight

against Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan, and this was the

justification (in part) for dropping nuclear bombs on Japan.

Somehow, I can only go so far in justifying anything so violent as

murder, death, war, etc., as extensions of any genuine religious

(spiritual) act or acts. These all seem to be political acts, and

even when there are "good guys" and "bad guys" we should not confuse

such conflicts with the real nature of spiritual battle...

.....which is every person's individual struggle to find inner peace

and in some way share this with the world around them.

Namaste,

Love,

Zenbob

[Guest guest]

It's good to be corrected.

>

> Harvey

 

Hi Harvey:

 

Knowing the truth, devotion to Ishvara, loving knowing is good.

Self awareness is finding out how a tendency is compelling our

actions thus diminishing the tendency. It is taking responsibility

and not objectifing the world without us in it. It is creating a

habit that opposes tendencies and points out the clear emptiness of

the Real Self.

 

Have a great Day,

Bobby G.